Volume 3, Issue 6, June – 2018
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Improving the Anti-Corrosion Properties of Porland
Cement Concrete by using Inhibitors
Dr. Bui Quoc Binh 1, Dr. Zhong Qingdong2
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering - Vietnam Maritime University, SRV
2
Electrochemical Laboratory, Department of Materials Engineering, SHU, Shanghai, China
Abstract:- Corrosion of reinforcement steel bars (rebar) in
concrete is one of the principal causes of untimely
degradation of reinforced concrete structures, leading to
structural failure. Various procedures are being used to
enhance the anti-corrosion properties of reinforced
concrete structures, which include surface coatings (both
of concrete and rebar surface), cathodic protection,
chloride eliminated and corrosion inhibitors.
Among those procedures, the using of corrosion
inhibitors is proved the effective manners to control
corrosion of rebar. Some attempts have been carried out to
investigate the performance of the vary kinds of inhibitors
such as: anodic inhibitors, cathodic inhibitors and mixed
inhibitors to control reinforcement steel bars corrosion.
Compressive strength test and electrochemical test were
conducted by series of inhibitors and varying the
proportion of inhibitors. In portland cement concrete the
additives not only increased or not effected in the
compressive strength of the concrete samples but also
enhanced the anti-corrosion properties.
This paper presents the results of experimental for 9
series of sample for exposure test (one series of pure
concrete) into artificial seawater (ASW).
Keywords: Anti-corrosion, Portland cement concrete,
Inhibitor.
I. INTRODUCTION
A large in amount of reinforced concrete structures such
as harbours, dry-docks, bridge beam and decks, piers, floating
offshore platforms and marine facilities are generally exposed
to chloride ions and other chemical substances those come
from saltwater, salt spray in atmosphere. Reinforced concrete
structures exposed to marine or river mouth environments are
subjected to the actions of a number of physical, chemical and
electrochemical degradation processes. In those conditions,
the endurance performance of concrete structures has been
causing great anxiety among researchers and designers around
the world. Among several deterioration processes of
reinforced concrete, the corrosion of steel rebar is of much
greater significance. Embedded steel rebar in concrete gets
corroded through two reactions which are environmentally
concerned, such as carbonation of concrete and chloride
diffusion in concrete. In the other way, attack on concrete due
to any one of these causes having a tendency to increase the
IJISRT18JU23 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
permeability; not only would this make the material
increasingly more susceptible to further action by the same
devastating agent but also to other types of attack. Thus mazes
of interlace chemical as well as physical causes of degradation
are found at work when a concrete structure exposed to
seawater is in an advanced stage of deterioration. The basic
procedures that have so far been applied to prevent corrosion
of reinforced concrete are as follows:
 enhancing the quality of concrete and increasing its cover
thickness,
 covering the surface of concrete by protective coatings,
 adding corrosion inhibitors,
 using cathode protection of the surface and,
 protecting the steel reinforcement in concrete [1].
The addition of inhibitors in concrete is an alternative
option for staving off the corrosion of steel in concrete in the
chloride ions environment [2,3]. Corrosion inhibitors can be
divided into three types: anodic, cathodic and mixed
depending on whether they interfere with the corrosion
preferentially at the anodic or cathodic sites or whether both
are involved [4]. The use of corrosion inhibitors in concrete
has been reviewed by Treadaway and Russel [5], Craig and
Wood [6], Griffin [7],Slater [8] and most recently by Berke
[9].
In this study, the present investigation anodic inhibitor,
cathodic inhibitor and the combination of two inhibitors were
evaluated for their anti-corrosion properties by taking in
various electrochemical techniques.
II. EXPERIMENTAL
A. Material
All inhibitors powder was purchased from Shanghai st-
nano science and technology, China. The HRB400 steel
(ribbed bars, used as rebar in concrete structures) was
purchased from Lianyungang Xingxin Iron and Steel Co., Ltd,
China. Those chemical type of inhibitors which were used is
shown in table 1. For making concrete samples, an ordinary
portland cement (GB 175-2007) was used. That Conch Brand
P.C 32.5 Portland cement was purchased from Shanghai
Conch Cement Ltd.
186
Volume 3, Issue 6, June – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Type of inhibitor Materials Mix proportions (kG/m3)
Chemical
No. Anodic Cathodic Mixed Water 185
formula
inhibitor inhibitor inhibitor Cement 429
1 NaNO2  Sand 536
2 Zn(H2PO4)2  Stone 1.250
3 Na2SiO3.9H2O 
4 Na2PO4.12H2O  Table 3. The mixture proportions for concrete (water/cement =
5 ZnSO4.7H2O  0.43)
6 Na2MO4.2H2O 
7 ZnO  C. Samples preparation
8 Na2WO4.2H2O  Electrodes: a copper wire was electrically connected to
one surface of each 10mmx10mmx0.5mm HRB400 steel
Table 1. Inhibitors used piece, and then this surface and all the other surfaces except
the one exposed to corrosive solution for corrosion testing
According to the Lyman and Fleming formula for were sealed with a thick bulk E44 epoxy resin wrapped by
preparation of artificial seawater [10], the artificial seawater PVC tube. After epoxy curing in laboratory condition, the
with salinity 3.50% was prepared. This solution was used for unsealed coupon surface was burnished on silicon carbide
corrosive media to exposure samples. (SiC) papers down to a grid size of 400. Then, the electrode
surface was rinsed with tap water, dried in air-flow of air-
The chemical composition of ASW is shown in table compressor machine (Fig.1).
2. All of chemical elements of ASW solution were AR types
and were purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co. After having prepared, all electrodes were cured in
Ltd. The corrosive solution was synthesized in large glass ambient condition at 18 h before being placed on concrete
cups by magnetic stirrer. samples (Fig. 2). In this present study, 9 series of concrete
samples were prepared. A table 4 gives the inhibitors
Element Content (g/ kG of solution) proportion in detailed.
NaCl 23.926
Na2SO4 4.008 After 28 days of moist-curing for concrete sample,
KCl 0.677 beside taking compressive strength test for 150mm cubic
NaHCO3 0.196 samples, all other concrete samples being exposed in artificial
KBr 0.098 sea water (ASW) solution. Concrete samples were casted in
H3BO3 0.026 formwork. After casting 36 h, the sample was detached out of
NaF 0.003 formwork and moist-curing for next 26.5 days. Then, the
MaCl2.6H2O 10.831 sample was fully immersed into ASW for 60days. This
CaCl2.2H20 1.519 condition was subjected to precast concrete structure in
SrCl2.6H2O 0.024 submerged zone (Fig. 4).
Distilled water bal.
All procedures were carried out in room condition with
Table 2. Formula for 1 kG of ASW with salinity 3.50% temperature T=2520C, relative humidity RH=55  5%.

B. Concrete mixture
In this work, concrete were mixed from natural coarse
aggregate and fine aggregate. A coarse aggregate was stone
with average diameter of 16 mm. A fine aggregate was dark
yellow river sand. All aggregates were purchased from Hosen
Building Materials Store, Haiphong, SRV.

A concrete mixture with those aggregate and slump 100-

140 mm was used. The 28-days compressive strength of this
normal concrete, as measured on 150 mm cubes, was 30 MPa,
respectively. The mixture proportions are shown in Table 3, it
conforms to JGJ55-2000. Fig 1:- HRB400 steel pieces and Electrodes

IJISRT18JU23 www.ijisrt.com 187

Volume 3, Issue 6, June – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

No Denote samples Inhibitor proportion

1 BC Blank sample
2 IH1 Na2SiO3.9H2O ~ 9.2g/L
3 IH2 Zn(H2PO4)2 ~ 9.2g/L
4 IH3 Na2PO4.12H2O ~ 9.2g/L
MIH1 NaNO2 ~ 4.6g/L & ZnO ~
5
4.6g/L
MIH2 Na2WO4.2H2O ~ 4.6g/L &
6
ZnSO4.7H2O ~ 4.6g/L
MIH3 Na2MO4.2H2O ~ 4.6g/L &
7
ZnSO4.7H2O ~ 4.6g/L
MIH4 Na2WO4.2H2O ~ 4.6g/L &
8
ZnO ~ 4.6g/L
MIH5 Na2MO4.2H2O ~ 4.6g/L &
9
ZnO ~ 4.6g/L

Table 4. The inhibitor proportions for concrete samples

Fig 4:- Samples were exposed in artificial sea water (ASW)

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Compressive strength test

After 28 days of moist-curing, the resistance of a
concrete sample to breaking under compression was taking by
MTU -100 testing machine. Table 5 shows the average
compressive strength results of different inhibitor added
concrete.

Average compressive
No. Samples
strength (kG/cm2)
1 BC 315
2 IH1 312
Fig 2:- Schematic of the structure of concrete sample 3 IH2 322
4 IH3 326
MIH1 7.2 (broken after having
5
load)
6 MIH2 318
7 MIH3 319
8 MIH4 306
9 MIH5 309

Table 5. The inhibitor proportions for concrete samples

From table 5 it is observed that mixing of NaNO2 and

ZnO (MIH1) is not suitable for inhibitor of cement concrete.
Electrochemical measurements were not conducted for this
sample serie. The other samples proved that inhibitor
additions were not effected to compressive strength of
concrete samples. Indeed, sulfate and phosphate inhibitors
could increase compressive strength of concrete samples
slightly.

Fig 3:- Concrete samples B. Evaluations of corrosion of rebars in concrete

In this study, corrosion behavior of 8 series of samples

IJISRT18JU23 www.ijisrt.com 188

Volume 3, Issue 6, June – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
(BC, IH1-3, MIH2-5) was investigated by means of AC concrete, not suitable for inhibition corrosion of cement
impedance method. The impedance modulus at the low concrete. Compressive strength of concrete sample was not
frequency (|Z|0.01Hz - getting from Bode plots by CHI660C affected by the other addition of inhibitors.
Electrochemical Workstation - Fig.5) is used as an useful
parameter to characterize the anti-corrosion properties. The In this study, excepted NaNO2 and ZnO inhibitor, the
results were shown in table 5. others proved that which are suitable for anticorrosion
additives of cement concrete.
From table 5 it is observed that based on impedance
value in comparision with blank sample BC, IH1, IH3, MIH4 REFERENCES
and MIH5 had no effective inhibition. But mixed inhibitors
such as IH2 and MIH3 had tremendous in inhibition of
anticorrosion. A mixing of both cathodic and anodic inhibitor [1]. Quocbinh Bui, Qingdong Zhong, International Journal of
Technical Research and Applications e-ISSN: 2320-8163,
such as MIH3 gained biggest impedance.
Vol.4, Issue 3 (May-June, 2016), pp. 371-377.
[2]. Roseberg A.M., Gaidis J.M., Materials Performance,
Vol.18, Nov. 1979, pp. 45-48.
[3]. Gaidis, J.M., Chemistry of corrosion inhibitors. Cement
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 26, 2004, pp.181–189.
[4]. Ramachandran V.S., Concrete Admixtures Hand book:
Properies, Science and Technology. Park Ridge, NJ,
USA: Noyes Publications, 1984, pp. 540–545.
[5]. Treadaway K.W.J., Russel A.D., Inhibition of the
corrosion of steel in concrete. Highways Public Works,
Vol.36, Aug. 1969, pp.40–41.
[6]. Craig R.J., Wood L.E., Effectiveness of Corrosion
Inhibitors and Their Influence on the Physical Properties
of Portland Cement Mortars. Transportation Research
record, No. 328, 1970, pp. 77–80.
[7]. Griffin D.F., Corrosion Inhibitors for Reinforced Concret.
ACI SP-49, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1975,
pp. 95–102.
[8]. Slater J.E., Corrosion of Metals in Association with
Concrete ASTM STP-818, American Society for Testing
and materials, Philadelphia, 1983. pp. 53.
[9]. Berke N.S., Corrosion Inhibitors in Concrete, Paper
No.445, Corrosion 89, National Association of Corrosion
Fig 5:- Bode plots at 60 days exposure in ASW of 8 samples Engineers, Houston, 1989.
[10]. Culkin F., The Major Constituents, Chapter 4,
No. Samples Z at 0.01Hz (Ohm) Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 1, 1st Ed., J. P. Riley and
1 BC 2.05E+4 G. Skirrow, Academic Press, New York, 1965, pp.121-
2 IH1 9.279E+3 161.
3 IH2 8.964E+4
4 IH3 2.162E+4
5 MIH2 2.388E+5
6 MIH3 3.571E+5
7 MIH4 1.695E+4
8 MIH5 1.039E+4

Table 5. The impedance modulus at the low frequency

(|Z|0.01Hz)

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the above results, some following conclusions

can be drawn:

Compressive strength measurements revealed that, the

NaNO2 and ZnO inhibitor can effect compressive strength of

IJISRT18JU23 www.ijisrt.com 189